|
Georgiacopguy
|
 |
« Reply #160 on: November 23, 2009, 10:27:48 AM » |
|
I think it was on the third hour of Glenda Beck, and Limbaugh lead his show with it. Limbaugh is also pointing out that certain newspapers refuse to print the emails due to them not being meant for public eyes. He's pointing out the the coverup.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The resistance starts here. Unfortunately, the entire thing is moving beyond the intellectual infowar. I vow I will not make an overt rush at violent authority, until authority makes it's violent rush at me and you. I will not falter, I will not die in this course. For that is how they win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Philbin
Guest
|
|
« Reply #162 on: November 23, 2009, 10:45:56 AM » |
|
so, it's confirmed? It wasn't a whistle-blower? The HACKERS DID IT? GOOD - this is exactly why I was asking, "When will the hackers start DISCOVERING all the truth of these criminals." Them hackers gotta help more. They are such a helpful RESOURCE. But, I'm a little skeptical (I know Alex is ALL FIRED UP) in the sense that, "Why didn't THE HACKERS help with the very important 9-11 question?"  Mike |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #164 on: November 23, 2009, 12:51:34 PM » |
|
so, it's confirmed? It wasn't a whistle-blower? The HACKERS DID IT? GOOD - this is exactly why I was asking, "When will the hackers start DISCOVERING all the truth of these criminals." Them hackers gotta help more. They are such a helpful RESOURCE. But, I'm a little skeptical (I know Alex is ALL FIRED UP) in the sense that, "Why didn't THE HACKERS help with the very important 9-11 question?" Mike hacker, shmaker... it don't matter where it came from, it is all public information and is not private at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The emails are not "private correspondence", however. UEA is a public institution. All of the emails on the webmail server in question, and on any UEA computer for that matter, are subject to public access and scrutiny. UEA provides the following Freedom of Information guidance:
5 key facts that all staff should know about Freedom of Information:
-The Act gives everyone both in and outside UEA a right of access to ANY recorded information held by UEA.
-A request for information must be answered within 20 working days.
-If you receive a request for information which mentions FOI, is not information you routinely provide, is unusual, or you are unsure of, you should pass the request to your FOIA contact or the Information Policy and Compliance Manager.
-You should ensure that UEA records are well maintained and accessible to other staff, so that they can locate information needed to answer a request when you are not there.
-As all documents and emails could potentially be released under the Act, you should ensure that those you create are clear and professional.
B U S T E D !
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Okinawa
|
|
« Reply #165 on: November 23, 2009, 01:30:13 PM » |
|
Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-Lawson-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-UEA-global-warming-data-manipulation.htmlLord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming. By Matthew Moore Published: 8:45AM GMT 23 Nov 2009 Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years. This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated. He claimed that the credibility of the university's world-renowned Climatic Research Unit - and British science - were under threat. "They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme. "If there's an explanation for what's going on they can make that explanation." Around 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents were stolen from UEA computers by hackers last week and uploaded on to a Russian server before circulating on websites run by climate change sceptics. Some of the correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers. One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."Prof Jones has insisted that he used the word "trick" to mean a "clever thing to do", rather than to indicate deception. He has denied manipulating data. Another scientist whose name appears in the documents accused the hackers of attempting to undermine the drive for a global consensus at next month's Copenhagen summit. Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research accused climate change sceptics of cherry-picking the documents and taking them out of context. Meanwhile, hopes that a legally binding treaty on cutting emissions will be agreed at Copenhagen have been boosted by the news that more than 60 world leaders plan to attend. Last week Lord Lawson, who served as chancellor for six years under Margaret Thatcher, told The Daily Telegraph that he planned to establish a think tank to challenge the consensus that drastic action is needed to combat global warming.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
larsonstdoc
|
|
« Reply #168 on: November 23, 2009, 01:58:28 PM » |
|
Bravo to the Hackers. It is nice to start Copenhagen with smoking guns.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SUPREMEMASTER
|
|
« Reply #169 on: November 23, 2009, 02:20:10 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Automatic User Post Signature:The message has to be put out in the right way.
|
|
|
|
TelepesT
|
|
« Reply #170 on: November 23, 2009, 02:50:15 PM » |
|
Downloading in my pants! This is awesome |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ten Foot Lizard Man from Planet Snickle-Snack in the POP-TART sector
Freedom T
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. - Mohandas Gandhi |
|
|
EvadingGrid
Toxophillite
Global Moderator
Member
 Offline
Posts: 10,630
Rat Catcher
|
|
« Reply #171 on: November 23, 2009, 02:58:00 PM » |
|
Downloading in my pants!
This is awesome
Enjoy.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Joe(WI)
|
|
« Reply #172 on: November 23, 2009, 03:02:13 PM » |
|
This ones for you, magnificent ba**ards!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The number, 666, has been changed. The new number is, 999.
|
|
|
|
TelepesT
|
|
« Reply #173 on: November 23, 2009, 03:11:00 PM » |
|
This ones for you, magnificent ba**ards! What program can you use to read the .pro files? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ten Foot Lizard Man from Planet Snickle-Snack in the POP-TART sector
Freedom T
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. - Mohandas Gandhi |
|
|
EvadingGrid
Toxophillite
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 10,630
Rat Catcher
|
|
« Reply #174 on: November 23, 2009, 03:16:14 PM » |
|
Alex Runs Down Man-made Climate Change Hoax Exposed in CRU Emails
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 23, 2009
Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception. You Tube - Alex Jones (1/2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx3q2arm_ek&feature=player_embeddedYou Tube - Alex Jones (2/2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4f98fBCfk&feature=player_embeddedIn the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media — guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy — are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty. In the above video, Alex Jones examines the startling revelations of the CRU files and spells out what it means for the global elite who have planned to use the ruse to impose crippling carbon taxes and put the finishing touches on their global totalitarian super-state and its accompanying control and slave grid. Infowars and Prison Planet are now feverishly going through the documents and will post the result in the hours and days ahead. In the meantime, here are a few quotes from the perpetrators:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Kevin Trenberth < trenbert@ucar.edu>
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away. Phil Jones < p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
Mike MacCracken < mmaccrac@comcast.net>
Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). Tim Johns < tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk>
Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible. Phil Jones < p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress. Christoph Kull < christoph.kull@pages.unibe.ch>
Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist. Keith Briffa < k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. Michael E. Mann < mann@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu>
Related articles:http://www.infowars.com/call-for-independent-inquiry-into-climategate-as-global-warming-fraud-implodes/http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-tv-doom-gloom-climate-fraudsters-exposed/http://www.infowars.com/dr-tim-ball-on-the-significance-of-the-cru-hacked-documents/http://www.infowars.com/inhofe-to-call-for-hearing-into-cru-u-n-climate-change-research/http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-meltdown-climategate/http://www.infowars.com/climatic-research-unit-hacked-e-mails-data/
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trailhound
|
|
« Reply #175 on: November 23, 2009, 03:26:16 PM » |
|
Alex Runs Down Man-made Climate Change Hoax Exposed in CRU Emails
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 23, 2009
Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception. You Tube - Alex Jones (1/2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx3q2arm_ek&feature=player_embeddedYou Tube - Alex Jones (2/2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4f98fBCfk&feature=player_embeddedIn the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media — guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy — are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty. In the above video, Alex Jones examines the startling revelations of the CRU files and spells out what it means for the global elite who have planned to use the ruse to impose crippling carbon taxes and put the finishing touches on their global totalitarian super-state and its accompanying control and slave grid. Infowars and Prison Planet are now feverishly going through the documents and will post the result in the hours and days ahead. In the meantime, here are a few quotes from the perpetrators:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Kevin Trenberth < trenbert@ucar.edu>
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away. Phil Jones < p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
Mike MacCracken < mmaccrac@comcast.net>
Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). Tim Johns < tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk>
Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible. Phil Jones < p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress. Christoph Kull < christoph.kull@pages.unibe.ch>
Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist. Keith Briffa < k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. Michael E. Mann < mann@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu>
Related articles:http://www.infowars.com/call-for-independent-inquiry-into-climategate-as-global-warming-fraud-implodes/http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-tv-doom-gloom-climate-fraudsters-exposed/http://www.infowars.com/dr-tim-ball-on-the-significance-of-the-cru-hacked-documents/http://www.infowars.com/inhofe-to-call-for-hearing-into-cru-u-n-climate-change-research/http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-meltdown-climategate/http://www.infowars.com/climatic-research-unit-hacked-e-mails-data/ MEGA BUMP!! PUNCH YOU IN THE EYE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuyb32pMF1w&feature=related |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 "Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2 At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK |
|
|
|
be100thmonkey
|
|
« Reply #176 on: November 23, 2009, 03:37:22 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
EvadingGrid
Toxophillite
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 10,630
Rat Catcher
|
|
« Reply #177 on: November 23, 2009, 03:52:50 PM » |
|
Global Warming On Trial: Inhofe Calls For Investigation Of UN IPCCIn response to the astounding revelations arising out of the hacked CRU emails, Senator Jim Inhofe has stated that unless something is done within the next seven days, he will lead the call for a rigorous investigation into mounting evidence that top climate scientists conspired to manipulate data to hide evidence of global cooling while engaging in academic witch hunts to eliminate scientists skeptical of man-made climate change. Speaking on the Americas Morning Show earlier today, Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new revelations proved what he has been warning about for over four years, that politicians and bias-driven climate scientists affiliated with the UN IPCC have been fraudulently "cooking the science" to conform to their agenda. "If nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation," said Inhofe. "Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with." Asked what he would call for an investigation of, Inhofe responded, "On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not." Meanwhile, even some pro-man made global warming advocates have conceded that an investigation is necessary. Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, told the London Guardian that only a rigorous investigation could clear the names of those accused of manipulating the data, admitting that the emails "created the impression of impropriety," which is a lot further than most have gone in accepting the damning nature of the hacked data. Indeed, the British Met Office performed the equivalent of a child sticking his fingers in his ears by merely attempting to dismiss the emails altogether, without even explaining what was meant when scientists at CRU talked about pulling "tricks" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. A spokesman at the Met Office, which jointly produces global temperature datasets with the Climate Research Unit, said there was no need for an inquiry. "If you look at the emails, there isn't any evidence that the data was falsified and there's no evidence that climate change is a hoax. It's a shame that some of the sceptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world's most respected scientists. The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be. It's no surprise, with the Copenhagen talks just days away, that this has happened now." As James Delingpole of the Telegraph highlights, alarmists are not going to be effected by the scandal, because they will allow nothing whatsoever to corrupt their religious belief system. "They’ve made up their minds and no quantity of contrary evidence, however devastating, is going to shake their considered position of “Nyah nyah nyah. Got my fingers in my ears. Not listening. The world IS warming and it’s man’s fault. Must tax carbon now….” However, there seems little doubt that this bombshell will go a long way to derailing, or at least delaying the agenda for a global carbon tax that will be collected by the very same elitists aggressively pushing the fraud of global warming. Listen to the interview with Inhofe below. You Tube Videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH6_hmEgfCs&feature=player_embeddedRefhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/23/climate-sceptics-bob-ward-nigel-lawsonhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017546/climategate-why-it-matters/http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-set-to-become-first-carbon-billionaire.htmlhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/call-for-independent-inquiry-into-climategate-as-global-warming-fraud-implodes.htmlSEE ALSO
RELATED: Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate as Global Warming Fraud Implodes
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JBS
Guest
|
|
« Reply #178 on: November 23, 2009, 04:06:11 PM » |
|
Note the needed "corrections"
Fisher.txt
I will send you the time series you need in a minute for the Central
west Greenland Stack...
And some other bits and pieces,,, The NGRIP record has the trend in it
that is no doubt closer to the truth for the fixed elevation temperature
history. But even there one could need a correction for elevation
change. The elevation corrected south GRIP Holocene has a very strong
negative delta trend in it and I expect there should be some correction
done to the north GRIP record too,, eventually I think they should all
come out looking like our records from Northern Canada. Now at least
ice core records have some low frequencies to correct... not like your
bloody trees that can not remember one century to the next,,,
(alderheimers )
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Finchie
|
|
« Reply #179 on: November 23, 2009, 04:14:48 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
EvadingGrid
Toxophillite
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Posts: 10,630
Rat Catcher
|
|
« Reply #180 on: November 23, 2009, 04:16:26 PM » |
|
CNN Sucks: Climategate Never Happened
Paul Chesser
The American Spectator
Monday, November 23, 2009
The last place cable news network is following the same tack it took on the ACORN scandal, which is, ignore the story that is not only overturning the cart and its apples, but is also crushing them into a pulp fit for a Mott’s jar. Climategate was absent from CNN Sucks‘ weekend discussions (at least as far as the transcripts identify), and now this morning on its home page the network highlights a report on catastrophic sea level rise predictions from children of the same discredited bunch! London, England (CNN) — A possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $28 trillion worth of assets in the world’s largest coastal cities, according to a report compiled for the insurance industry. (!!!)…
The report, released on Monday by WWF and financial services Allianz, concludes that the world’s diverse regions and ecosystems are close to temperature thresholds — or “tipping points.”
WWF is the “tipping points” specialist, finding new ones all the time. More from CNN Sucks: According to the report, carried out by the UK-based Tyndall Centre, the impacts of passing “Tipping Points” on the livelihoods of people and economic assets have been underestimated.
Global temperatures have already risen by at least 0.7 degrees Celsius and the report says a further rise by 2-3 degrees in the second half of the century is likely unless deep cuts in emissions are put in place before 2015.Incredibly the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, from where this scandal has erupted, accounts for 11 of the 28 researchers listed as “founders” of the Tyndall Centre. So what is it? A collaborative effort of: scientists, economists, engineers and social scientists, who together are working to develop sustainable responses to climate change through trans-disciplinary research and dialogue on both a national and international level – not just within the research community, but also with business leaders, policy advisors, the media and the public in general.Also, UEA is the headquarters for the Tyndall Centre, but at the same time (at least based on some Climategate emails) it appears they are both competitors and collaborators for research projects and funding. The report for WWF was authored by UEA’s Anthony Footitt and Tim Lenton, who are not listed as part of the CRU staff. I could go off on so many tangents, but back to CNN Sucks. As with the New York Times and reporter Andrew Revkin, clearly the network has their own revenue-producing projects they need to protect (as does parent corporation Time-Warner). Expect them to continue to act as though nothing has been discredited, because then they would have to admit being discredited themselves. http://www.ajc.com/business/cnn-falls-to-last-175077.htmlhttp://www.dealseekingmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/motts_classic_apple_sauce.jpghttp://www.climatedepot.com/a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive--Continuously-Updated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Uphttp://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/20/yes-it-doeshttp://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/23/climate.report.wwf.allianz/index.htmlhttp://www.tyndall.ac.uk/About/Structure/Tyndall-Centre-Foundershttp://www.tyndall.ac.uk/Abouthttp://www.tyndall.ac.uk/communication/news-archive/2009/situations-vacant-three-lecturers-climate-change-tyndall-ueahttp://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=923&filename=1223915581.txthttp://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2009/WWFPresitem14356.htmlhttp://www.tyndall.ac.uk/users/anthony-footitthttp://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/lentonthttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.htmlhttp://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/21/presto-alarmist-emails-not-suchttp://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/planet.in.peril/http://www.time.com/time/2002/greencentury/enopener.html
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
evolve
|
|
« Reply #182 on: November 23, 2009, 05:30:05 PM » |
|
Thumbs up to the hackers! A.J. Loves the smell of VICTORY! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Nobody likes the TRUTH!
|
|
|
|
JBS
Guest
|
|
« Reply #183 on: November 23, 2009, 05:31:34 PM » |
|
Here's all? the emails all formatted, organized and ready to view! Someone did a lot of work here. Very nice site. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
larsonstdoc
|
|
« Reply #184 on: November 23, 2009, 05:50:11 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mr anderson
|
|
« Reply #185 on: November 23, 2009, 07:26:15 PM » |
|
Quotes & Articles:The Volokh Conspiracy: NYT Policy on Illegally Acquired DocumentsThe Australian: Hot and bothered -'About 1000 emails and 3000 documents have been posted on websites and seized on by climate change sceptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.' The Age: Email scandal rallies web climate scepticsSydney Morning Herald: A sacrifice to keep the status quo
In the Australian Senate -http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_news_spreads/ Senator PARRY I also want to raise some questions about new information that seems to have come to light in recent times which probably bears testimony as to why we should not be rushing this. I am looking at reports in the media, and I stress they are allegations and the veracity of the alleged emails has not been confirmed. … Documents have been leaked going back some years. Some of these documents, if they are found to be true, just raise further questions which, if I were the Prime Minister of this country … would mean that I would want to hold off a bit. I would want to cool off a bit before I charged off to Copenhagen or put monumental legislation to this parliament.…Reports say: … some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind. Senator JOYCE (2.50 pm)— My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. Is the minister aware of reports in today’s Australian, the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal and other leading world newspapers documenting Kevin Trenberth, the IPCC lead author in 2001-07, when he said: … we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.Is the minister also aware of the director of the British Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, and emails that talk of ‘tricks’ to hide the decline in global warming?Or Phil Jones’ statement that he ‘cheered’ at the death of John L Daly in Launceston, a scientists and climate sceptic, in 2004? Is the minister also aware of the culture within the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit that has strong links, as demonstrated, with the IPCC of intimidation towards the free expression of views on climate change, referring to sceptical colleagues—(Time expired) Senator WONG— Through you, Mr President, what is clear to every senator, and to any Australian who is interested in what the Senate is doing, is that Senator Joyce, Senator Bernardi, Senator Minchin and many others on that side are not interested in the facts....Everything he does and everything he says needs to be listened to with that in mind—that he comes to this debate with a completely closed mind... Nick Minchin, Opposition leader in the Senate: These emails reveal at least prima facie evidence that supporters of the theory of anthropogenic global warming are going to considerable lengths to doctor evidence and to suppress information and intimidate those who don’t support that theory. Professor Ian Plimer: Here we have the Australian government underpinning the biggest economic decision this country has ever made and it’s all based on fraud. Lord Monckton says those implicated by the leaked emails are “crooks”:http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/ The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years. Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up… (P)rocurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.
Even Monbiot says the science now needs “reanalyising”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_monbiot_says_the_science_now_needs_reanalyising/Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked: It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet… If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly: I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
WeAreChange BrisbaneI hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t
|
|
|
|
TelepesT
|
|
« Reply #186 on: November 23, 2009, 07:40:16 PM » |
|
Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling By DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writer Monday, November 23, 2009 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/22/international/i095654S32.DTL(11-23) 06:38 PST LONDON, United Kingdom (AP) -- A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month's global climate summit in Denmark. Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado, said he believes the hackers who stole a decade's worth of correspondence from a British university's computer server deliberately distributed only those documents that could help attempts by skeptics to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change. Trenberth, a well respected atmospheric scientist, said it did not appear that all the documents stolen from the university had been distributed on the Internet by the hackers. The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said hackers last week stole from its computer server about a decade's worth of data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. About 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents have been posted on Web sites and seized on by climate change skeptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence. "It is right before the Copenhagen debate, I'm sure that is not a coincidence," Trenberth said in a telephone interview from Colorado. At least 65 world leaders will attend the Copenhagen climate summit in December as representatives of 191 nations seek agreement on a new global treaty on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases. Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his own e-mails posted online. "I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."In one of the stolen e-mails, Trenberth is quoted as saying "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies — in particular improved recording of rising sea surface temperatures. In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."Trenberth acknowledged that language used by some colleagues in the hacked e-mails "looks awkward at best," particularly messages which criticize climate change skeptics. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ten Foot Lizard Man from Planet Snickle-Snack in the POP-TART sector
Freedom T
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. - Mohandas Gandhi |
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #187 on: November 23, 2009, 07:44:55 PM » |
|
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=498&filename=1109021312.txtFrom: Phil Jones < p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxxSubject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005 Cc: "raymond s. bradley" < rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" < mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Mike, Ray and Malcolm, The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !Cheers Phil PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !X-Sender: f023@xxxxxxxxx.xxxX-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:05 +0000 To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxxFrom: Keith Briffa < k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA Subject: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:02:37 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: pressure grows on climate modellers to relase secret data Thread-Index: AcUXiV64e/f3Ii8uQSa0X88pndSQgQAl2O1w From: "Peiser, Benny" < B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To: "cambridge-conference" < cambridge-conference@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean CCNet 22/2005 - 21 February 2005 PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA -------------------------------------------------------------------- This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, Mr. Mann tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish a retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical methods have since grown. --The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005 But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre says is Mann's resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds his data, all details of his statistical analysis, and his code. So this is what I say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep concern over peer review: give up your data, methods and code freely and with a smile on your face. --Kevin Vranes, Science Policy, 18 February 2005 Mann's work doesn't meet that definition [of science], and those who use Mann's curve in their arguments are not making a scientific argument. One of Pournelle's Laws states "You can prove anything if you can make up your data." I will now add another Pournelle's Law: "You can prove anything if you can keep your algorithms secret." --Jerry Pournelle, 18 February 2005 The time has come to question the IPCC's status as the near-monopoly source of information and advice for its member governments. It is probably futile to propose reform of the present IPCC process. Like most bureaucracies, it has too much momentum and its institutional interests are too strong for anyone realistically to suppose that it can assimilate more diverse points of view, even if more scientists and economists were keen to join up. The rectitude and credibility of the IPCC could be best improved not through reform, but through competition. --Steven F. Hayward, The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005 (1) HOCKEY STICK ON ICE The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005 (2) SCIENCE AND OPEN ALGORITHMS: "YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING WITH SECRET DATA AND ALGORITHMS" Jerry Pournell, 18 February 2005 (3) OPEN SEASON ON HOCKEY AND PEER REVIEW Science Policy, 18 February 2005 (4) CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE: TIME FOR TEAM "B"? The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005 (5) BRING THE PROXIES UP TO DATE! Climate Audit, 20 February 2005 (6) CARELESS SCIENCE COSTS LIVES The Guardian, 18 February 2005 (7) RE: MORE TROUBLE FOR CLIMATE MODELS Helen Krueger < hkrueger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> (8 ) HOW TO HANDLE ASTEROID 2004 MN4 Jens Kieffer-Olsen < dstdba@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> (9) AND FINALLY: EUROPE FURTHER FALLING BEHIND IN TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH EU Observer, 10 February 2005 ==================
Full info at above link
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
portuguese anarchist
|
|
« Reply #188 on: November 23, 2009, 07:53:58 PM » |
|
This leak comes in perfect timing.
Right before the media propaganda blitz that will happen because of the Copenhagen summit.
My eternal thanks to the hackers also.
"Obviously this is scientific fraud. They've already been proven that their data was wrong. Now we know it was on purpose."
--- Alex Jones, 23/11/2009
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #189 on: November 23, 2009, 07:56:47 PM » |
|
"I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."
Search for "exaggerated", "appalled" and "out of context" These are standard terms they use for yelling at anyone speaking truth. This is fricking beyond absurd. They lied, lied, lied to make money, money, money, and get more power, power, power. What f**king assholes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Letsbereal
|
|
« Reply #190 on: November 23, 2009, 08:04:20 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<- |
|
|
|
TelepesT
|
|
« Reply #191 on: November 23, 2009, 08:06:22 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ten Foot Lizard Man from Planet Snickle-Snack in the POP-TART sector
Freedom T
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. - Mohandas Gandhi |
|
|
|
Damascus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #192 on: November 23, 2009, 08:16:31 PM » |
|
The attackers are already mounting their defence.
1.) They say that the media broke the story before the hack.
2.) They are saying that the data was cherry picked.
3.) They are saying that they believe the data was made up(on our side LOL).
4.) They are saying that we are using despicable means to get the data out(finally!??).
The sad thing is that, with a cult you don't need to rationally go over the data.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mp3228
|
|
« Reply #193 on: November 23, 2009, 08:17:19 PM » |
|
I can picture in my mind, Rockefeller sitting in a room when this happened, thinking, oh crap, we are up the creek without a paddle now. Plan B....
Now lets see what their "Plan B" is.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mp3228
|
|
« Reply #194 on: November 23, 2009, 08:24:30 PM » |
|
Another Mirror. I modified domain's httpd-vhost.conf to expose it. http://www.kore-net.com/EDIT: I got 2mbits up, have at it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #195 on: November 23, 2009, 08:26:33 PM » |
|
I can picture in my mind, Rockefeller sitting in a room when this happened, thinking, oh crap, we are up the creek without a paddle now. Plan B....
Now lets see what their "Plan B" is.
ALL THEIR PLAN B'S ARE BELONG TO US...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #196 on: November 23, 2009, 08:29:19 PM » |
|
Alex Runs Down Man-made Climate Change Hoax Exposed in CRU Emails http://www.infowars.com/alex-runs-down-man-made-climate-change-hoax-exposed-in-cru-emails/Kurt Nimmo Infowars November 23, 2009 Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception. In the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media — guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy — are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty. In the above video, Alex Jones examines the startling revelations of the CRU files and spells out what it means for the global elite who have planned to use the ruse to impose crippling carbon taxes and put the finishing touches on their global totalitarian super-state and its accompanying control and slave grid. Infowars and Prison Planet are now feverishly going through the documents and will post the result in the hours and days ahead. In the meantime, here are a few quotes from the perpetrators: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. Kevin Trenberth < trenbert@ucar.edu> I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away. Phil Jones < p.jones@uea.ac.uk> In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. Mike MacCracken < mmaccrac@comcast.net> Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). Tim Johns < tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk> A d v e r t i s e m e n t Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible. Phil Jones < p.jones@uea.ac.uk> Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress. Christoph Kull < christoph.kull@pages.unibe.ch> Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist. Keith Briffa < k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. Michael E. Mann < mann@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu> Related articles: Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate as Global Warming Fraud Implodes Alex Jones TV: Doom & Gloom Climate Fraudsters Exposed Dr. Tim Ball On the Significance of the CRU Hacked Documents Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research Global Warming Meltdown: Climategate! Climatic Research Unit Hacked E Mails & Data |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #197 on: November 23, 2009, 08:30:10 PM » |
|
“Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists http://www.infowars.com/climategate-peer-review-system-was-hijacked-by-warming-alarmists/Steve Watson Infowars.net Monday, Nov 23, 2009 One of the most striking revelations to immediately emerge from the “climategate” scandal has been references to efforts by scientists espousing the human-caused warming theory to exclude contrary viewpoints from important scientific publications. Among the thousands of emails and documents hacked or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University last week are several references to an agenda to shut down scientific debate on global warming by stifling counter-evidence from other scientists. Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain. The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists. In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals. Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup”. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote. In another of the emails, Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), says that the journal in question, Climate Research, “encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’”. Wigley noted that the publisher of the journal should be told that it is being “perceived” as a vehicle of “misinformation”, adding that the word “perceived” should be emphasized because “whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about– it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.” Wigley also wrote that a group of 50+ scientists could be gotten together to put their names to a letter to add weight to the claim and hopefully help to remove the editorial board of the journal. Other emails show that some of the scientists declined to make their data available to independent scientists whose views they disagreed with, clear evidence that they were simply unwilling to engage in scientific debate – a core ethic of the scientific community. Renowned climate scientist Dr Tim Ball sums up the stunning gravitas of the leaks with regards to the process of peer-reviewing and the publication of papers on climate change in journals. “What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature.” Dr Ball explains. “So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’… And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.” “On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….” We have long covered the fact that the so called “scientific consensus” on global warming is wholly manufactured and that there are thousands of scientists who have differing viewpoints to the human-induced warming theorists. Indeed, over two years ago we reported the fact that a survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, concluded that less than half endorsed the “consensus view,” that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change. We now have clear evidence that a concerted effort has been made by the IPCC connected climate scientists to block dissenting opinion on climate change, regardless of it’s scientific merit. “This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is directly threatened with physical violence in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.” John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, “It’s disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested.” |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
mp3228
|
|
« Reply #198 on: November 23, 2009, 08:30:18 PM » |
|
ALL THEIR PLAN B'S ARE BELONG TO US...
This really F*k'd their agenda... BIG TIME.These documents set them back YEARS. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jofortruth
|
|
« Reply #199 on: November 23, 2009, 08:47:07 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
